Jump to content
IGNORED

Creationists, I'd be interested in learning about your knowledge o


jerryR34

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary?  thanks 

 

 

 

Jerry, you admitted that I've already satisfied your request.

 

Now that I've provided you with your request, could you please do me the favour of acknowledging mine?

 

I pointed out that your request was actually loaded. You've asked us to provide an unbiased definition of evolution (which I did) but by qualifying that you just want us to admit what the science says is the unbiased definition of evolution without comment on our perception of the veracity of the theory, you've biased the request so that if when we provide the definition it's like we're admitting it has been empirically confirmed.

 

But here's the thing, science didn't provide that definition you liked - I did... and science has disconfirmed that definition.

 

All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that it was a loaded request – it’s like you've asked us to admit that science shows that women feel pain so could be please stop making excuses for beating our wives. We admit that women feel pain, but not that we beat our wives and we have to be able to make the distinction, otherwise you just win by definition.

 

I have no problem articulating any theory with which I disagree. If you want me to articulate the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, I can do that too. I seek to accurately represent all views irrespective of whether or not I find them compelling.

 

All I’m asking is that you extend the same courtesy.

I acknowledged I appreceiated your answer a couple times.  Science is unbiased, I'd admit scientists often are.  I think I've asked a simple question.  I'm not looking for someone to win the thread, I just want to get some creationists views on what they perceive the opposing views to be.  As I mentioned, it is difficult to argue against something when you do not understand it.  I'm really not trying to debate anyone here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary?  thanks 

 

=============================================================

 

 

Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says

 

 

Reification (Fallacy), again.  "Mainstream Science" doesn't say anything....it's not alive  :duh:

 

Since you continue to use this particular Fallacy, here's how it's defined.....

 

Reification Definition: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/155-reification

 

TIP:  Fallacies are Fallacious

 

Fallacious: : containing a mistake : not true or accurate.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious . Synonyms: erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, flawed, inaccurate, mistaken, misinformed, misguided.

 

As I'm not trying to debate anything, I'm not sure why you are accusing me of fallacies. If it helps, rather than say what science says, tell me what the majority of scientsts say regarding evolution.  I don't want to get wrapped around the axle on language as nature does not care what we say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  764
  • Topics Per Day:  0.18
  • Content Count:  7,626
  • Content Per Day:  1.82
  • Reputation:   1,559
  • Days Won:  44
  • Joined:  10/03/2012
  • Status:  Offline

As this is a discussion forum for discussing and debating... It seems the OP set restrictions as to what would and wouldn't be allowed to be discussed. This topic is all about posting without bias (according to the discretion of the OP starter) and all about science. What is the purpose of this thread Jerry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  844
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   118
  • Days Won:  11
  • Joined:  12/23/2010
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary?  thanks 

 

 

 

Jerry, you admitted that I've already satisfied your request.

 

Now that I've provided you with your request, could you please do me the favour of acknowledging mine?

 

I pointed out that your request was actually loaded. You've asked us to provide an unbiased definition of evolution (which I did) but by qualifying that you just want us to admit what the science says is the unbiased definition of evolution without comment on our perception of the veracity of the theory, you've biased the request so that if when we provide the definition it's like we're admitting it has been empirically confirmed.

 

But here's the thing, science didn't provide that definition you liked - I did... and science has disconfirmed that definition.

 

All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that it was a loaded request – it’s like you've asked us to admit that science shows that women feel pain so could be please stop making excuses for beating our wives. We admit that women feel pain, but not that we beat our wives and we have to be able to make the distinction, otherwise you just win by definition.

 

I have no problem articulating any theory with which I disagree. If you want me to articulate the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, I can do that too. I seek to accurately represent all views irrespective of whether or not I find them compelling.

 

All I’m asking is that you extend the same courtesy.

I acknowledged I appreceiated your answer a couple times.  Science is unbiased, I'd admit scientists often are.  I think I've asked a simple question.  I'm not looking for someone to win the thread, I just want to get some creationists views on what they perceive the opposing views to be.  As I mentioned, it is difficult to argue against something when you do not understand it.  I'm really not trying to debate anyone here.

 

 

I fully understand your request and your concerns Jerry, but I don't think you're actually reading my posts since you seem to continue to miss the point.

 

I'm not referring to whether or not scientists are biased.

 

I'm saying that your request is worded in a loaded way.

 

I can see, and am sensitive to your request, but can you please refrain from wording it in a way that suggests that if we provide an unbiased definition that we are conceding that such a definition is therefore scientific.

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

 

That's all I'm asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

 

 

To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary?  thanks 

 

 

 

Jerry, you admitted that I've already satisfied your request.

 

Now that I've provided you with your request, could you please do me the favour of acknowledging mine?

 

I pointed out that your request was actually loaded. You've asked us to provide an unbiased definition of evolution (which I did) but by qualifying that you just want us to admit what the science says is the unbiased definition of evolution without comment on our perception of the veracity of the theory, you've biased the request so that if when we provide the definition it's like we're admitting it has been empirically confirmed.

 

But here's the thing, science didn't provide that definition you liked - I did... and science has disconfirmed that definition.

 

All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that it was a loaded request – it’s like you've asked us to admit that science shows that women feel pain so could be please stop making excuses for beating our wives. We admit that women feel pain, but not that we beat our wives and we have to be able to make the distinction, otherwise you just win by definition.

 

I have no problem articulating any theory with which I disagree. If you want me to articulate the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, I can do that too. I seek to accurately represent all views irrespective of whether or not I find them compelling.

 

All I’m asking is that you extend the same courtesy.

I acknowledged I appreceiated your answer a couple times.  Science is unbiased, I'd admit scientists often are.  I think I've asked a simple question.  I'm not looking for someone to win the thread, I just want to get some creationists views on what they perceive the opposing views to be.  As I mentioned, it is difficult to argue against something when you do not understand it.  I'm really not trying to debate anyone here.

 

 

I fully understand your request and your concerns Jerry, but I don't think you're actually reading my posts since you seem to continue to miss the point.

 

I'm not referring to whether or not scientists are biased.

 

I'm saying that your request is worded in a loaded way.

 

I can see, and am sensitive to your request, but can you please refrain from wording it in a way that suggests that if we provide an unbiased definition that we are conceding that such a definition is therefore scientific.

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

 

That's all I'm asking.

 

In my OP, I tried to do as I was asking.  I believe the creation myth is allegory.  I did however try to explain what I know about it without offering commentary to the contrary.  That is all I'm asking.  Also, the OP stated that the assumption is that your post is not your belief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  844
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   118
  • Days Won:  11
  • Joined:  12/23/2010
  • Status:  Offline

 

In my OP, I tried to do as I was asking.  I believe the creation myth is allegory.  I did however try to explain what I know about it without offering commentary to the contrary.  That is all I'm asking.  Also, the OP stated that the assumption is that your post is not your belief.  

 

 

Stay with me here Jerry, I fully understand and acknowledge that.

 

But I need to you actually read what it is that I'm asking you and address my point, since you seem to be responding what you assume my point is instead of actually acknowledging my point.

 

So I'll just repeat it here: 

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

 

That's all I'm asking.

 

I'm not saying that you failed to do that in your example of creationism.

 

I'm saying you're failing to refrain from commenting on the veracity of the theory of evolution. The way you're talking about evolution is biased and suggestive of the veracity of the theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

 

In my OP, I tried to do as I was asking.  I believe the creation myth is allegory.  I did however try to explain what I know about it without offering commentary to the contrary.  That is all I'm asking.  Also, the OP stated that the assumption is that your post is not your belief.  

 

 

I fully understand and acknowledge that Jerry.

 

But I need to you actually read what it is that I'm asking you and address my point, since you seem to be responding what you assume my point is instead of actually acknowledging my point.

 

So I'll just repeat it here: 

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

 

That's all I'm asking.

 

I understand what you are saying...again, I offered what I understood regarding the creation story in the bible.  I think too much comment on my part would constitute debate which wasn't the intent of the thread.  If a creatioinist does not want to comment here because of the parameters of what I asked, that is, of course, their perrogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  844
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   118
  • Days Won:  11
  • Joined:  12/23/2010
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

In my OP, I tried to do as I was asking.  I believe the creation myth is allegory.  I did however try to explain what I know about it without offering commentary to the contrary.  That is all I'm asking.  Also, the OP stated that the assumption is that your post is not your belief.  

 

 

I fully understand and acknowledge that Jerry.

 

But I need to you actually read what it is that I'm asking you and address my point, since you seem to be responding what you assume my point is instead of actually acknowledging my point.

 

So I'll just repeat it here: 

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

 

That's all I'm asking.

 

I understand what you are saying...again, I offered what I understood regarding the creation story in the bible.  I think too much comment on my part would constitute debate which wasn't the intent of the thread.  If a creatioinist does not want to comment here because of the parameters of what I asked, that is, of course, their perrogative.

 

 

 Jerry, since you're still taking about the creation story you really don't understand what I'm saying.

 

You say you want us to speak unbiasedly about evolution.

 

That's all I want from you.

 

Can I challenge you to respond just to the next two things I've been repeating, please:

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

The only thing that can be proven is math.  Hypothesis and Theories can only be disproven.  If a hypothesis stands up to rigorous testing and is found to accurately predict results, it becomes a theory.

 

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

 

I explicitly stated defining it does not validate it, and I explicitly asked for creationists' understanding of how science defines evolution.  Maybe I should have said mainstream secular science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  844
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   118
  • Days Won:  11
  • Joined:  12/23/2010
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

A scientific hypothosis itself has to be confirmed or disconfirmed empricially in order for it to be what the science says.

 

The only thing that can be proven is math.  Hypothesis and Theories can only be disproven.  If a hypothesis stands up to rigorous testing and is found to accurately predict results, it becomes a theory.

 

If we are just tasked to define the theory but not comment on its veracity, then so too do you have to refrain from weighing in on its veracity so please refrain from saying that the objective definition of the theory has anything to do with what science says about the theory.

 

I explicitly stated defining it does not validate it, and I explicitly asked for creationists' understanding of how science defines evolution.  Maybe I should have said mainstream secular science.

 

 

There we go!

 

Yes, please. That qualification will do.

 

Thanks!

 

And as far as what you said about "The only thing that can be proven is math.  Hypothesis and Theories can only be disproven."

 

You'll notice that I didn't use the word "proven" at all, so you seemed to have been responding to what you assumed I said instead of what I actually said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...